Which elements did I jury-pick?

It will take more than one person to reverse a prohibition that was established in 1937. A prohibition that was not prompted by public appeal but by racist attitudes and a need to provide jobs to those who formerly were focused on enforcing alcohol prohibition.

I thought the concept of personal liberty was that as long as you do not infringe upon the rights or harm of others then society has little to say about "unacceptable or inappropriate behavior" let alone that society has the right to use government force and it's power to punish as a means to pressure people to conform to a social or moral ideal. Though, we are a society that once considered interracial relationships to be "unacceptable or inappropriate behavior" so I suppose that notion is a bit out dated.

What are these other "unacceptable or inappropriate behaviors" that you say drug use leads to, and would you include alcohol in the list of drugs that lead to them? If so, then would you support adding alcohol to the list of Controlled Substances and using the force of criminal law to prohibit the manufacture, distribution, and possession of alcohol to prevent people from engaging in the "unacceptable or inappropriate behaviors?"

How does removing cannabis from the Controlled Substances act and moving the well establish market above ground infringe upon your rights? Do you not see that your position that someone should not be allowed to plant a seed in their garden and grow a plant for their own use infringes upon their rights?

Fundamentally that is what we are talking about, the power of the government, or society, or the people (or however you want to put it) to dictate what plant a man may grow on his own property and use for himself. That is certainly a dangerously extreme grant of power. Just imagine if it were used to say that you could not grow any of your own food and not just the nutritious hempseed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp#Food

I'm pretty sure that the members of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition http://www.leap.cc/ aren't the same as the Occupy nuts.

Sure the price would drop because it's no longer on the black market, but there would still be a thriving industry... perhaps it would even be more of a local cottage industry, like small wineries and craft breweries or fine chocolateir or soap makers. It's hard to say what the market would ultimately look like.

As for hemp, according to a 1938 article in Popular Mechanics it was considered the New Billion Dollar Crop... if fully realized today, the hemp industry could potentially be in the trillions of dollar.

Whether adults are legally allowed to grow, posses, use, or buy and sell cannabis in an above ground market has nothing to do with whether this country will be destroyed or not.

Maintain the prohibition of industrial hemp certainly does work toward destroying our country and ensuring that American farmers cannot cultivate a commodity crop that can ensure American independence through the tens of thousands of products that it can be used to make.

Is arguing that cannabis prohibition should end the same as pushing pot or encouraigng people to be lazy potheads? Can't it just be about realizing that spending billions of dollars annually and arresting 800,000 americans each year because of plant (a plant that is shown scientifically to be far safer than alcohol or tobacco) is a bad public policy, a tremendous waste of resources, and is antithetical to the whole notion of personal liberty.

Not to mention that the prohibition also hinders American farmers and industry from realizing the potential of cannabis as an industrial commodity crop (ie. hemp).

eh, it was late... at least I didn't say "ur" like the kids these days.

You acknowledge that laws should not be blindly followed, which hopefully means you also think that there are some laws that a bad and should be repealed.

I thought our culture also held "these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" and that there are some things that we do not have the right, or the enumerated power, to make laws to infringe upon.

I am one who believes that the power of the criminal law, and the ability to punish and arrest and imprison, can only be legitimately exercised in those cases where there is an actual victim. Or as Jefferson put it, "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others" and "A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."

I'd also argue that cannabis prohibition infringes upon the 1st, 4th, 5th, 8th, and 9th amendments to the Constitution and that Congress is not enumerated with such power and has usurped it through a misinterpretation of the Commerce Clause dating back to Wickard v Filburn. The misinterpretation is evident by the 18th amendment, if Congress has such a a broadly enumerated power under the Commerce Clause it could have prohibited alcohol without amending the Constitution.

Do you still believe that disproven reefer madness about cannabis being a gateway drug? Wow you're a cullible fool.

Oh, so your one of those who believes others have the right to dictate what seed a man may plant and grow and harvest from his own garden. Interesting, what other tyrannical rights over their fellow man do others have? Or is such power of control unlimited?

Misspelled it, meant ganja butter.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_foods

Something that the people or their governments have no right to make illegal.

You mean the logic about someone doing something by themselves to themselves that poses no direct risk to you or does not infringe upon your rights or property?